FACTS:
The plaintiff (herein appellant No. 1) is a sister of Appuraya who filed a suit claiming her right to the extent of 1/6th share in the properties described in Schedule-A to the plaint. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that her father, Appuraya was an absolute owner of the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff had a right in the said property. According to her, after the death of her father Appuraya, brother of the plaintiff, was in occupation of the suit property but as the suit property was an absolute property of her father, she too had a share in the property. Moreover, Appuraya had also executed a writing to the effect that he would give 1/6th share in the suit property to the plaintiff. Inspite of the above fact, as no part of the suit property was given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Udupi, claiming her right in the suit property.
After considering the evidence led before the trial court, the trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/18th share in the suit property. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the trial court, the plaintiff; and defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed plaintiff’s appeal and allowed 4th defendant’s appeal.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Land Tribunal ought not to have recognised defendant no.4 as a tenant in respect of the land in question as the land was not agricultural land as there was a building and shops on the land and so the land was a house site. He further submitted that even a deed was executed by defendant no.4 whereby he had agreed to give share of the plaintiff-sister to her. But for the reasons best known to defendant no. 4, he did not give any share to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, he submitted that the trial court was right when it decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The learned counsel appearing for defendant no.4 submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is just and proper for the reason that the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to the suit land. He submitted that the order passed by the Land Tribunal was never challenged by the plaintiff and it had become final. According to him, the plaintiff could not be permitted to submit at this stage that the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction, especially when the Land Tribunal had recognised right of defendant no.4 by an order. He, therefore, submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court was incorrect and that the order passed by the High Court required no interference.
HELD:
The Apex Court held that the High Court had rightly set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. By virtue of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, right of defendant no. 4 had been recognised. The Land Tribunal had arrived at a finding that defendant no. 4 was a tenant in respect of the land in question and, therefore, he was declared to be a tenant and he got right in respect of the suit land.
Further, it was also observed that the deed executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of the plaintiff would also not give any right to plaintiff to ask for partition or share in the suit land as the plaintiff had no share in the suit property. And hence the appeals were dismissed.